WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.940 Welcome to The Debate. Today, we are dissecting 00:00:04.940 --> 00:00:08.160 a concept that is, well, it's simultaneously 00:00:08.160 --> 00:00:11.039 the holy grail of the business world and an absolute 00:00:11.039 --> 00:00:14.900 minefield in academia. Leadership. It is the 00:00:14.900 --> 00:00:16.899 ultimate buzzword, isn't it? I mean, it's an 00:00:16.899 --> 00:00:19.219 industry worth billions in books and seminars 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.920 and coaching. Yet, if you ask five experts to 00:00:21.920 --> 00:00:23.440 define it, you'll probably get six different 00:00:23.440 --> 00:00:27.640 answers. It's slippery. It is slippery, but it's 00:00:27.640 --> 00:00:30.320 also fundamental. And that ambiguity brings us 00:00:30.320 --> 00:00:32.079 right to the central tension we're unpacking 00:00:32.079 --> 00:00:34.820 today. The question isn't just, what is good 00:00:34.820 --> 00:00:37.659 leadership? The question is, where does it come 00:00:37.659 --> 00:00:41.259 from? Is leadership a coherent set of, you know, 00:00:41.259 --> 00:00:44.399 innate traits, the great man theory, where specific 00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:46.320 individuals are genetically or psychologically 00:00:46.320 --> 00:00:50.079 wired to lead? Or is that just a romantic myth? 00:00:50.570 --> 00:00:53.329 Is leadership actually a social process defined 00:00:53.329 --> 00:00:56.409 entirely by the situation, by the followers, 00:00:56.670 --> 00:00:59.310 and by the environment? In other words, does 00:00:59.310 --> 00:01:01.869 the person make the times, or do the times make 00:01:01.869 --> 00:01:04.049 the person? I'm going to take the position that 00:01:04.049 --> 00:01:07.310 the person matters, fundamentally. I'll be arguing 00:01:07.310 --> 00:01:10.430 for the trait and attribute perspective. My stance 00:01:10.430 --> 00:01:12.969 is that leadership is rooted in stable, individual 00:01:12.969 --> 00:01:15.769 characteristics. History is shaped by people 00:01:15.769 --> 00:01:17.870 who possess a specific constellation of traits. 00:01:18.379 --> 00:01:21.099 intelligence, charisma, grit that allow them 00:01:21.099 --> 00:01:23.659 to step forward when others step back. And I'll 00:01:23.659 --> 00:01:26.140 be taking the situational and constructivist 00:01:26.140 --> 00:01:28.900 side. I'm going to argue that what we call leadership 00:01:28.900 --> 00:01:32.239 is often a projection. It's a fluid process that 00:01:32.239 --> 00:01:35.180 is entirely dependent on context. I believe that 00:01:35.180 --> 00:01:37.659 the leader is a story we tell ourselves to make 00:01:37.659 --> 00:01:40.659 sense of complex dynamics and that the environment 00:01:40.659 --> 00:01:43.780 is what actually dictates who rises, not some 00:01:43.780 --> 00:01:46.700 innate virtue. Then let's get into it. And I 00:01:46.700 --> 00:01:49.200 want to start with history. Because for centuries, 00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:52.400 this wasn't even a debate. If you look at Thomas 00:01:52.400 --> 00:01:57.140 Carlyle's work from 1841, Heroes and Hero Worship, 00:01:57.319 --> 00:02:00.739 the logic was crystal clear. Carlyle argued that 00:02:00.739 --> 00:02:03.079 the history of the world is essentially the biography 00:02:03.079 --> 00:02:06.079 of great men. Which is a very 19th century romantic 00:02:06.079 --> 00:02:08.479 way of looking at things. It feels a bit like 00:02:08.479 --> 00:02:11.259 reading a mythological text rather than, you 00:02:11.259 --> 00:02:14.340 know, science. It is poetic, certainly. But it's 00:02:14.340 --> 00:02:17.530 also observational. Carlyle identified that certain 00:02:17.530 --> 00:02:20.370 individuals possessed specific talents, physical 00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:23.250 characteristics, and skills that allowed them 00:02:23.250 --> 00:02:26.689 to bend the arc of history. He wasn't just talking 00:02:26.689 --> 00:02:29.129 about kings, he was talking about prophets and 00:02:29.129 --> 00:02:32.009 poets and commanders. And while the language 00:02:32.009 --> 00:02:34.610 of divine right has faded, the data supporting 00:02:34.610 --> 00:02:36.949 the individual has actually gotten stronger in 00:02:36.949 --> 00:02:39.590 the modern era. Has it? Because I recall trait 00:02:39.590 --> 00:02:42.669 theory taking a massive beating in the mid -20th 00:02:42.669 --> 00:02:45.219 century. Academics essentially threw it in the 00:02:45.219 --> 00:02:47.719 trash bin. They did for a while, but it made 00:02:47.719 --> 00:02:51.360 a massive comeback. In the 1980s, modern meta 00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:54.360 -analyses re -established it with empirical rigor. 00:02:54.680 --> 00:02:57.099 We aren't talking about divine sparks anymore. 00:02:57.219 --> 00:02:59.180 We're talking about the big five personality 00:02:59.180 --> 00:03:02.460 factors. We now have statistical evidence that 00:03:02.460 --> 00:03:05.039 traits like extroversion, conscientiousness, 00:03:05.080 --> 00:03:08.419 and openness to experience are reliable predictors 00:03:08.419 --> 00:03:12.000 of leadership emergence. Emergence being the 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:15.069 key word there. Getting the job, not necessarily 00:03:15.069 --> 00:03:17.710 doing it well. Well, we'll get to effectiveness, 00:03:17.949 --> 00:03:20.710 but you can't ignore the pattern. When you look 00:03:20.710 --> 00:03:23.629 at a Steve Jobs, you see a measurable level of 00:03:23.629 --> 00:03:26.189 determination and adaptability that exceeds the 00:03:26.189 --> 00:03:28.909 norm. When you look at Mother Teresa, you see 00:03:28.909 --> 00:03:31.770 high integrity and diplomacy. This is the leader 00:03:31.770 --> 00:03:34.430 attribute pattern approach. It's not just one 00:03:34.430 --> 00:03:37.400 trait. It's an integrated totality. Some people 00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:39.860 are simply built with the hardware to process 00:03:39.860 --> 00:03:42.599 social complexity and drive outcomes. It's a 00:03:42.599 --> 00:03:44.740 constellation of attributes that you can't just 00:03:44.740 --> 00:03:47.159 manufacture out of thin air. See, I hear that, 00:03:47.280 --> 00:03:49.819 and I hear a desire to simplify the world. You're 00:03:49.819 --> 00:03:51.819 quoting Carlyle, but I'd point you to Herbert 00:03:51.819 --> 00:03:55.039 Spencer or even Karl Marx. Their counter -argument 00:03:55.039 --> 00:03:57.719 was that the times produced the person, not the 00:03:57.719 --> 00:04:00.219 other way around. If Steve Jobs had been born 00:04:00.219 --> 00:04:03.289 in an agrarian society in the 1600s, He wouldn't 00:04:03.289 --> 00:04:05.210 be a tech visionary. He'd probably just be a 00:04:05.210 --> 00:04:07.110 difficult farmer who argued about how to stack 00:04:07.110 --> 00:04:09.689 hay. But he would still be the one leading the 00:04:09.689 --> 00:04:12.889 other farmers. The context changes. The drive 00:04:12.889 --> 00:04:16.189 doesn't. That drive is internal. I disagree. 00:04:17.209 --> 00:04:20.410 In the late 1940s, Stogdell and Mann conducted 00:04:20.410 --> 00:04:23.129 massive reviews of the literature, and they found 00:04:23.129 --> 00:04:25.129 something that contradicts your innate hardware 00:04:25.129 --> 00:04:27.730 theory. They found that people who are leaders 00:04:27.730 --> 00:04:30.290 in one situation are not necessarily leaders 00:04:30.290 --> 00:04:32.839 in others. You take a brilliant military general, 00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:36.300 someone decisive, authoritarian, tactical, and 00:04:36.300 --> 00:04:38.439 you drop them into a creative design agency where 00:04:38.439 --> 00:04:40.220 the goal is abstract thinking and collaboration, 00:04:40.560 --> 00:04:43.800 and they often flail. If leadership were a stable 00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:46.439 trait like height or eye color, it should transfer 00:04:46.439 --> 00:04:49.300 anywhere. It often doesn't. I'd argue that's 00:04:49.300 --> 00:04:52.639 a skills gap or perhaps a domain knowledge gap, 00:04:52.759 --> 00:04:56.180 not a lack of leadership potential. I think it's 00:04:56.180 --> 00:04:59.000 deeper than that. I think we suffer from what 00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:02.939 Meindl calls the romance of leadership. As humans, 00:05:03.079 --> 00:05:06.300 we're terrified of randomness. We hate the idea 00:05:06.300 --> 00:05:09.040 that organizational success is often luck or 00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:11.899 market forces or timing. So to make the world 00:05:11.899 --> 00:05:14.720 feel manageable, we attribute massive control 00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:17.319 to the person at the top. We invent the great 00:05:17.319 --> 00:05:19.720 man because the alternative, that chaos rules 00:05:19.720 --> 00:05:22.279 and nobody is really driving the bus, is just 00:05:22.279 --> 00:05:25.279 too scary. That's a cynical take. You don't think 00:05:25.279 --> 00:05:27.610 individual competence drives results? You think 00:05:27.610 --> 00:05:29.610 it's all just people projecting their hopes onto 00:05:29.610 --> 00:05:32.410 a figurehead? I think we confuse competence with 00:05:32.410 --> 00:05:34.870 visibility. Have you heard of the Babel hypothesis? 00:05:35.509 --> 00:05:37.509 I have, but refresh our listeners. It's one of 00:05:37.509 --> 00:05:39.670 those studies that makes you question everything. 00:05:39.930 --> 00:05:42.790 It's a fascinating, albeit depressing, finding 00:05:42.790 --> 00:05:45.790 in social psychology. Studies show that leader 00:05:45.790 --> 00:05:48.490 emergence, who gets picked a leader group, is 00:05:48.490 --> 00:05:51.149 highly correlated with the sheer quantity of 00:05:51.149 --> 00:05:54.370 speaking time, not the quality, not the intelligence, 00:05:54.649 --> 00:05:57.959 just the amount of words spoken. If you talk 00:05:57.959 --> 00:06:00.459 a lot, people perceive you as leader -like. That 00:06:00.459 --> 00:06:02.759 doesn't sound like innate virtue to me. That 00:06:02.759 --> 00:06:04.920 sounds like we promote whoever likes the sound 00:06:04.920 --> 00:06:07.079 of their own voice. That might explain some bad 00:06:07.079 --> 00:06:09.259 metal management, I'll grant you that. But you're 00:06:09.259 --> 00:06:11.459 ignoring the biological imperative. You can't 00:06:11.459 --> 00:06:13.259 talk about leadership without talking about evolution. 00:06:13.660 --> 00:06:16.000 It's not just about who talks the most. It's 00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:19.579 about survival. Go on. Van Vugt and Ahuja define 00:06:19.579 --> 00:06:22.720 this clearly. Humans are social species, just 00:06:22.720 --> 00:06:25.910 like ants, bees, or chimpanzees. We naturally 00:06:25.910 --> 00:06:27.949 select leaders because it solves coordination 00:06:27.949 --> 00:06:30.990 problems. We need a focal point to survive threats. 00:06:31.290 --> 00:06:33.610 But we aren't ants. I mean, ants are genetically 00:06:33.610 --> 00:06:37.129 programmed drones. Humans have agency. We can 00:06:37.129 --> 00:06:40.170 choose not to follow. We are primates, though. 00:06:40.509 --> 00:06:43.029 Wrangham and Peterson wrote a book called Demonic 00:06:43.029 --> 00:06:45.930 Males that links human leadership directly to 00:06:45.930 --> 00:06:48.850 chimpanzee behavior. It's ugly, but it's real. 00:06:48.990 --> 00:06:52.470 It's about violence. territoriality, and competition 00:06:52.470 --> 00:06:55.649 for the chief male spot, there is a biological 00:06:55.649 --> 00:06:59.069 drive for hierarchy. We are hardwired to look 00:06:59.069 --> 00:07:01.629 for the alpha who can protect the tribe. That's 00:07:01.629 --> 00:07:04.850 not a social construct. That's DNA. When the 00:07:04.850 --> 00:07:06.790 group is threatened, we look for the strongest 00:07:06.790 --> 00:07:09.970 protector. Okay, but you are cherry -picking 00:07:09.970 --> 00:07:13.189 your primates to fit a specific narrative. How 00:07:13.189 --> 00:07:16.089 so? You're focusing on chimps because they fit 00:07:16.089 --> 00:07:18.990 the dominance and violence model. But look at 00:07:18.990 --> 00:07:21.800 the bonobo. There are second closest genetic 00:07:21.800 --> 00:07:24.839 relatives sharing almost the same amount of DNA 00:07:24.839 --> 00:07:28.639 with us as chimps do. But noble society is matriarchal, 00:07:28.639 --> 00:07:31.660 it's peaceful, and they unite behind an alpha 00:07:31.660 --> 00:07:33.579 female who leads through coalition building, 00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:36.540 not through violence. It's a valid counterexample, 00:07:36.600 --> 00:07:39.019 but chimps are generally considered the closer 00:07:39.019 --> 00:07:41.959 proxy for historical human aggression and warfare. 00:07:42.399 --> 00:07:45.480 But it proves that biology isn't destiny, that 00:07:45.480 --> 00:07:48.220 dominance equals leadership model isn't the only 00:07:48.220 --> 00:07:51.379 biological path. And speaking of biology, look 00:07:51.379 --> 00:07:54.259 at the hormones. You mentioned the alpha. Van 00:07:54.259 --> 00:07:56.540 Voo found that while testosterone correlates 00:07:56.540 --> 00:07:59.079 with dominance, it does not correlate with effective 00:07:59.079 --> 00:08:01.120 leadership. Is there a functional difference 00:08:01.120 --> 00:08:03.579 in a crisis? Sometimes you need dominance to 00:08:03.579 --> 00:08:05.920 get things moving. There is a massive difference. 00:08:06.779 --> 00:08:09.240 Dominance is forcing people to do things through 00:08:09.240 --> 00:08:12.639 fear or coercion. Leadership is influencing them 00:08:12.639 --> 00:08:16.019 to want to do things. If biology were the sole 00:08:16.019 --> 00:08:18.899 driver, the highest testosterone individual would 00:08:18.899 --> 00:08:21.879 always be the best leader. The data says they 00:08:21.879 --> 00:08:24.139 are usually just the most aggressive person in 00:08:24.139 --> 00:08:26.560 the room. Those are two very different things. 00:08:26.819 --> 00:08:29.819 Fair point. I'll pivot then. Let's move away 00:08:29.819 --> 00:08:32.240 from the brute force biology and look at the 00:08:32.240 --> 00:08:34.460 psychology of perception. Because you're right, 00:08:34.559 --> 00:08:36.759 it's not just about muscles, it's about the mind. 00:08:37.139 --> 00:08:40.960 This leads to implicit leadership theories. These 00:08:40.960 --> 00:08:43.799 are the prototypes we carry in our heads? Exactly. 00:08:44.019 --> 00:08:46.480 We all have a cognitive template of what a leader 00:08:46.480 --> 00:08:49.860 looks like. Intelligence, trustworthiness, assertiveness. 00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:52.720 When an individual displays these traits, specifically 00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:55.320 authenticity, they are granted influence by the 00:08:55.320 --> 00:08:58.500 group. It's not just babble. It's emotional intelligence. 00:08:58.960 --> 00:09:03.019 Which is a trait. Ideally, yes. Leaders manage 00:09:03.019 --> 00:09:06.539 moods. They transmit positive affect through 00:09:06.539 --> 00:09:10.379 what's called emotional contagion. If a leader 00:09:10.379 --> 00:09:13.519 is optimistic and resilient, the group performs 00:09:13.519 --> 00:09:16.200 better because that energy is psychologically 00:09:16.200 --> 00:09:19.620 contagious. You cannot fake that over the long 00:09:19.620 --> 00:09:22.440 term. You have to have that emotional capacity. 00:09:22.899 --> 00:09:26.480 A depressed or erratic leader crashes the group's 00:09:26.480 --> 00:09:28.899 performance purely through that psychological 00:09:28.899 --> 00:09:32.120 transmission. I'm going to challenge the idea 00:09:32.120 --> 00:09:34.799 that you can't fake it. Have you looked at neo 00:09:34.799 --> 00:09:37.610 -emergent theory? Lay it on me. Neo -emergent 00:09:37.610 --> 00:09:39.730 theories suggest that leadership is often an 00:09:39.730 --> 00:09:41.929 impression formed by information management. 00:09:42.610 --> 00:09:45.769 Essentially, it's PR. It's not about what you 00:09:45.769 --> 00:09:48.330 are. It's about what you project. You think it's 00:09:48.330 --> 00:09:51.409 all smoke and mirrors? Let's look at a classic 00:09:51.409 --> 00:09:55.309 great man, Lord Nelson. British naval hero, won 00:09:55.309 --> 00:09:57.950 the Battle of Trafalgar. Historians know that 00:09:57.950 --> 00:10:00.610 Nelson was obsessed with his image. He would 00:10:00.610 --> 00:10:03.330 often write his own versions of battles and send 00:10:03.330 --> 00:10:05.490 them back to England before he even arrived, 00:10:05.750 --> 00:10:08.330 just to ensure the newspapers printed the story 00:10:08.330 --> 00:10:11.370 he wanted told. That's savvy marketing, but he 00:10:11.370 --> 00:10:13.509 still had to win the battle first. He still had 00:10:13.509 --> 00:10:16.750 to command the fleet. True, but the heroism was 00:10:16.750 --> 00:10:19.929 a construct he actively built. And this obsession 00:10:19.929 --> 00:10:23.509 with emergence, with who looks and sounds like 00:10:23.509 --> 00:10:26.110 a leader, is dangerous. It creates what researchers 00:10:26.110 --> 00:10:29.450 call absentee leaders. I've heard this term. 00:10:29.529 --> 00:10:32.330 These are the empty suits? Exactly. These are 00:10:32.330 --> 00:10:34.990 people who have the traits to get promoted. Maybe 00:10:34.990 --> 00:10:37.730 they are extroverted, tall, and confident. But 00:10:37.730 --> 00:10:39.470 once they're in the role, they psychologically 00:10:39.470 --> 00:10:42.490 check out. And here's the kicker. Research shows 00:10:42.490 --> 00:10:45.730 absentee leaders are actually worse for an organization 00:10:45.730 --> 00:10:49.490 than toxic leaders. Worse than toxic? That seems 00:10:49.490 --> 00:10:53.070 like a stretch. A toxic boss ruins your life. 00:10:53.409 --> 00:10:56.769 A toxic boss ruins your life, but you identify 00:10:56.769 --> 00:10:59.169 the problem immediately. You can bond with your 00:10:59.169 --> 00:11:01.970 coworkers against them. With an absentee leader, 00:11:02.129 --> 00:11:04.830 someone who emerged based on traits but doesn't 00:11:04.830 --> 00:11:08.009 engage, the incompetence is silent. It destroys 00:11:08.009 --> 00:11:11.169 role clarity and creates ambiguity. It proves 00:11:11.169 --> 00:11:13.769 that having the traits to get the job tells us 00:11:13.769 --> 00:11:16.490 nothing about your ability to actually do the 00:11:16.490 --> 00:11:18.809 work. I think that's a failure of selection, 00:11:19.129 --> 00:11:22.549 not a failure of trait theory. But let's look 00:11:22.549 --> 00:11:25.210 at that work. You claim it's all situational. 00:11:25.309 --> 00:11:28.009 But I would argue that specific behaviors yield 00:11:28.009 --> 00:11:30.850 results regardless of the situation. There are 00:11:30.850 --> 00:11:34.370 universal tools that work. Such as? Reinforcement 00:11:34.370 --> 00:11:38.590 theory. This is behavioral science 101, BF Skinner 00:11:38.590 --> 00:11:41.480 stuff. Empirical research covering the last 20 00:11:41.480 --> 00:11:44.120 years suggests that leaders who effectively use 00:11:44.120 --> 00:11:46.539 positive reinforcement can boost performance 00:11:46.539 --> 00:11:50.620 by 17%. That is a measurable, universal outcome. 00:11:50.919 --> 00:11:52.879 It doesn't matter if you're running a coffee 00:11:52.879 --> 00:11:55.960 shop or a Fortune 500 company. If you reward 00:11:55.960 --> 00:11:58.519 good behavior, you get more of it. That is a 00:11:58.519 --> 00:12:01.639 skill the leader possesses. Incentives work. 00:12:01.779 --> 00:12:05.120 I grant you that. But that's management, not 00:12:05.120 --> 00:12:07.990 necessarily leadership. Then let's talk about 00:12:07.990 --> 00:12:10.769 transformational leadership. This is the gold 00:12:10.769 --> 00:12:14.289 standard, pioneered by Bayes and Riggio. We're 00:12:14.289 --> 00:12:16.929 talking about leaders who provide vision, intellectual 00:12:16.929 --> 00:12:19.789 stimulation, and individualized consideration. 00:12:20.330 --> 00:12:23.149 They don't just manage transactions. They move 00:12:23.149 --> 00:12:26.309 followers beyond self -interest. You cannot tell 00:12:26.309 --> 00:12:28.610 me that a leader who inspires a team to achieve 00:12:28.610 --> 00:12:31.190 the impossible is just a product of the situation. 00:12:31.590 --> 00:12:34.379 They are the catalyst for the situation. I'm 00:12:34.379 --> 00:12:37.000 not denying that inspiration happens. I'm denying 00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:39.940 that one style works everywhere. I would comment 00:12:39.940 --> 00:12:42.500 with the Fiedler contingency model. This is the 00:12:42.500 --> 00:12:46.399 idea of fit over virtue. Precisely. Fiedler argued 00:12:46.399 --> 00:12:49.360 that there is no ideal leader. It depends entirely 00:12:49.360 --> 00:12:52.340 on the favorability of the situation. If you 00:12:52.340 --> 00:12:55.580 are in a burning building, an extreme, unfavorable 00:12:55.580 --> 00:12:58.179 situation, you don't want a transformational 00:12:58.179 --> 00:13:00.279 leader asking you about your feelings or trying 00:13:00.279 --> 00:13:03.159 to intellectually stimulate you. You want a task 00:13:03.159 --> 00:13:06.320 -oriented authoritarian to scream exit left now. 00:13:06.759 --> 00:13:09.539 Agreed. In a crisis, command and control works. 00:13:09.899 --> 00:13:12.860 But if you use that same authoritarian style 00:13:12.860 --> 00:13:15.700 in a creative marketing meeting, an intermediate 00:13:15.700 --> 00:13:19.159 situation, you destroy morale. You need a relationship 00:13:19.159 --> 00:13:22.159 -oriented leader. The person is just a variable. 00:13:22.360 --> 00:13:24.860 They only work if the equation around them is 00:13:24.860 --> 00:13:27.259 right. So you view the leader as a puzzle piece. 00:13:27.639 --> 00:13:31.799 Yes. And leader -member exchange theory, or LMX, 00:13:32.200 --> 00:13:35.740 takes it even further. LMX proves that leadership 00:13:35.740 --> 00:13:38.960 isn't a broadcast from a great man to the masses. 00:13:39.419 --> 00:13:42.559 It's a series of specific one -on -one relationships. 00:13:43.100 --> 00:13:47.059 The dyad. Right. Leaders naturally create in 00:13:47.059 --> 00:13:49.259 -groups, the people they trust, the teacher's 00:13:49.259 --> 00:13:51.840 pets, and out -groups, the people they manage 00:13:51.840 --> 00:13:54.919 by formal authority. If you are in the in -group, 00:13:55.080 --> 00:13:57.779 that leader looks amazing to you. If you're in 00:13:57.779 --> 00:14:01.240 the out -group, that same leader looks incompetent. 00:14:01.679 --> 00:14:04.320 So who is the real leader? It depends entirely 00:14:04.320 --> 00:14:07.940 on who you ask. It's a social transaction, not 00:14:07.940 --> 00:14:11.919 a personal characteristic. But even in LMX, the 00:14:11.919 --> 00:14:14.360 leader is the one initiating that structure. 00:14:14.559 --> 00:14:17.639 The leader decides who is in the in -group. That 00:14:17.639 --> 00:14:20.539 implies agency. The leader is still the architect 00:14:20.539 --> 00:14:23.779 of those relationships. Or the follower grants 00:14:23.779 --> 00:14:26.659 the legitimacy. Which brings me to the ultimate 00:14:26.659 --> 00:14:29.679 variable you were underestimating, culture. I 00:14:29.679 --> 00:14:31.789 don't ignore culture. But I believe leadership 00:14:31.789 --> 00:14:35.450 traits transcend. Competence is competence. I 00:14:35.450 --> 00:14:39.029 strongly disagree. The very concept of what a 00:14:39.029 --> 00:14:43.049 leader is is culturally bound. In Confucian societies, 00:14:43.370 --> 00:14:46.490 the ideal is the scholar leader, based on filial 00:14:46.490 --> 00:14:49.710 piety and benevolence. In other cultures, it's 00:14:49.710 --> 00:14:52.389 paternalistic, a father figure who literally 00:14:52.389 --> 00:14:55.250 controls the personal lives of the workers. Those 00:14:55.250 --> 00:14:57.169 are just different flavors of the same dish. 00:14:57.350 --> 00:14:59.549 They're still figures of authority and direction. 00:15:00.059 --> 00:15:02.740 They are fundamentally different dishes. Look 00:15:02.740 --> 00:15:05.039 at gender perception. There was a fascinating 00:15:05.039 --> 00:15:07.679 study where they asked women to envision a leader. 00:15:08.059 --> 00:15:11.120 German women almost exclusively imagined a male 00:15:11.120 --> 00:15:14.299 executive. Indian women, however, were much more 00:15:14.299 --> 00:15:17.080 likely to imagine both men and women. That speaks 00:15:17.080 --> 00:15:19.879 to societal bias, not the essence of what leadership 00:15:19.879 --> 00:15:22.970 is. It speaks to the fact that the trait of leadership 00:15:22.970 --> 00:15:25.889 is actually just a reflection of the follower's 00:15:25.889 --> 00:15:28.190 bias. If you don't fit the follower's cultural 00:15:28.190 --> 00:15:31.490 mold, you cannot lead them. If you walk into 00:15:31.490 --> 00:15:34.490 a culture that values humility with your extroversion 00:15:34.490 --> 00:15:37.210 and charisma traits you say are universal, you 00:15:37.210 --> 00:15:40.029 might be seen as rude and arrogant. The power 00:15:40.029 --> 00:15:43.029 lies with the follower's perception, not the 00:15:43.029 --> 00:15:45.740 leader's personality. I see the logic, but I 00:15:45.740 --> 00:15:48.159 have to push back on the idea that it's all relative. 00:15:48.460 --> 00:15:51.500 There is significant research into global leadership 00:15:51.500 --> 00:15:54.399 competencies. In a globalized economy, things 00:15:54.399 --> 00:15:56.860 like cognitive complexity and global business 00:15:56.860 --> 00:15:59.039 savvy are required whether you are in Berlin, 00:15:59.279 --> 00:16:02.299 Bangalore, or Boston. The problems are universal, 00:16:02.519 --> 00:16:05.899 so the skills to solve them must be too. Required, 00:16:05.899 --> 00:16:09.419 perhaps. But are they sufficient? I would argue 00:16:09.419 --> 00:16:13.039 they are essential. And consider the alternative. 00:16:13.659 --> 00:16:16.340 You talk about situational leadership as if the 00:16:16.340 --> 00:16:19.480 group can just handle itself. But look at laissez 00:16:19.480 --> 00:16:22.860 -faire leadership, the hands -off approach. Research 00:16:22.860 --> 00:16:25.340 consistently shows that in leaderless groups, 00:16:25.559 --> 00:16:28.919 performance suffers, satisfaction suffers. Because 00:16:28.919 --> 00:16:32.899 people hate ambiguity. Exactly. Most people prefer 00:16:32.899 --> 00:16:35.840 to be led. They need direction to reduce uncertainty. 00:16:36.299 --> 00:16:39.279 If the situation were all that mattered, groups 00:16:39.279 --> 00:16:42.039 would self -organize perfectly every time. They 00:16:42.039 --> 00:16:44.799 don't. They wait. They wait for a leader to step 00:16:44.799 --> 00:16:47.519 up. Or they wait for someone to take the blame. 00:16:47.700 --> 00:16:50.179 No, they wait for vision. They wait for someone 00:16:50.179 --> 00:16:52.419 with the grit and the intelligence to cut through 00:16:52.419 --> 00:16:55.159 the noise. Or they wait for the person who talks 00:16:55.159 --> 00:16:57.899 the most, the Babel effect, to tell them what 00:16:57.899 --> 00:17:00.320 to do. We are circling back to the start, which 00:17:00.320 --> 00:17:02.379 suggests we're reaching the limits of the debate. 00:17:02.700 --> 00:17:04.660 But I think we've highlighted the complexity 00:17:04.660 --> 00:17:07.099 here. It's not a simple black and white issue. 00:17:07.380 --> 00:17:11.529 We have. And here's my closing thought. We have 00:17:11.529 --> 00:17:14.710 spent centuries looking for the great man, and 00:17:14.710 --> 00:17:17.950 I think it is a dangerous pursuit. It ignores 00:17:17.950 --> 00:17:20.230 the role of luck, it ignores the Babel effect, 00:17:20.450 --> 00:17:22.950 and it ignores the overwhelming power of the 00:17:22.950 --> 00:17:26.430 situation. When we romanticize leadership, we 00:17:26.430 --> 00:17:28.950 give individuals credit for outcomes they didn't 00:17:28.950 --> 00:17:32.130 control. A leader is often just a surfer riding 00:17:32.130 --> 00:17:34.859 a wave they didn't create. And I will maintain 00:17:34.859 --> 00:17:37.180 that while the wave matters, some people drown 00:17:37.180 --> 00:17:40.079 and others surf. You cannot ignore that individual 00:17:40.079 --> 00:17:42.759 differences, intelligence, emotional stability, 00:17:43.079 --> 00:17:45.859 drive, consistently predict who stays on the 00:17:45.859 --> 00:17:49.099 board. Leadership is, as Earhart and Jensen described 00:17:49.099 --> 00:17:52.500 it, an exercise in language that creates a future 00:17:52.500 --> 00:17:54.779 that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It is 00:17:54.779 --> 00:17:57.079 an act of individual will. Perhaps the middle 00:17:57.079 --> 00:17:59.779 ground lies in the modern integrated psychological 00:17:59.779 --> 00:18:02.769 theory. The move toward personal leadership. 00:18:03.269 --> 00:18:06.430 Exactly. The idea is that before you can manage 00:18:06.430 --> 00:18:10.109 a situation or lead the followers, you must understand 00:18:10.109 --> 00:18:13.170 your own psychology. You have to know your traits 00:18:13.170 --> 00:18:16.289 to adapt to the context. I can agree with that. 00:18:16.390 --> 00:18:19.509 Whether born or made, the effective leader is 00:18:19.509 --> 00:18:22.190 one who is conscious of both their own wiring 00:18:22.190 --> 00:18:24.789 and the environment they are operating in. Indeed. 00:18:25.009 --> 00:18:27.930 So, to our listeners, we leave you with this 00:18:27.930 --> 00:18:30.450 question. Are you following a person because 00:18:30.450 --> 00:18:33.410 of who they are? Or are you just responding to 00:18:33.410 --> 00:18:35.710 the situation you find yourself in? Something 00:18:35.710 --> 00:18:37.369 to think about next time you're in a meeting. 00:18:37.690 --> 00:18:39.710 Thanks for listening to The Debate.